Currently Online 
Aielyn said:
2) Again, not strictly true. You have to provide details on where you applied to, etc. If someone is caught out as not actually trying, it can cause real problems. 3) I'm sorry, but that's just absurd thinking on your part, probably driven by idiotic radio shock-jocks who make those sorts of claims with no backup evidence. Do you honestly think that a person would go through nine months of pregnancy, followed by things that apply after childbirth, just for $5000 for cigarettes or a TV? Seriously? If you actually think any sane person would do that, you're lacking in sanity, yourself. 4) Not true even in the slightest. Minimum wage is $15.51 per hour or $589.30 per week (which is based on 38 hours a week). As per your numbers, for a single parent with dependents, the dole is $529.80 per fortnight, or $264.90 per week. Anybody who would claim that $589.30 per week is "barely above" $264.90 per week has failed elementary mathematics, and should perhaps consider returning to grade 5 mathematics. In order to have minimum wage be "barely above" the dole, they would have to work less than 18 hours a week. And keep in mind, relatively few people earning minimum wage are full adults with children. But even if you suppose that they're making that much a week (by working only 17 hours a week), they are still eligible for partial welfare support - at $264.90 per week of earned money, they are still eligible for $134 per week in welfare support. 5) You really think that there's a problem with offering those who are in such circumstances such things?
Now, I don't dispute the existence of dole cheats, and families that happily live on the dole (indeed, a family member's boyfriend happens to come from such a family... although he actually does make a strong effort to keep work, and has a very good work ethic, as it so happens). But these are the natural side-effects of trying to keep everyone from living in poverty (and preventing poverty is a very good aim). And it's worth noting that there really aren't enough jobs out there to employ everyone. The alternative is to take a repressive, vindictive, limited approach to welfare, which only makes matters worse. One of the funny things about welfare at the level we spend in Australia is that it's actually a net positive impact on the budget - the stimulation of the economy, and the prevention of various illnesses and related issues (which reduces burden on hospitals, etc), actually means that the government has more money to spend than would otherwise be true. Republicans in America and Liberals in Australia (for those in America reading this, the Liberals, with a big L, are a conservative, right-wing party) fail to realise that this sort of thing actually furthers their ideals, because they have such a blinkered view of the world that they think that preventing poverty is akin to giving out free money for nothing in return, when in fact it is quite the opposite. If there's a problem with the welfare system in Australia, it's that it's too complicated and not sufficiently tightened in terms of regulation of it... and that it's not forgiving enough for those who can't find work due to various situations. Let me use myself as an example. I relatively recently finished my PhD, and am currently looking for a postdoctoral research fellowship. In the meantime, I'm rapidly running out of money, despite quite a bit of thrift AND being helped by my parents. I tried going onto welfare, but they expect me to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight. Now, it's not a lot for someone who is trying for a labouring position, but if I were to apply to every remotely-appropriate job that was advertised, I would be lucky to apply for 5 per fortnight. In reality, restricting it to jobs that I have a small chance of actually getting, I'm lucky to find one per fortnight (but I have quite a decent chance on those jobs, and if I get one, it'll have quite a decent wage attached). Meanwhile, holding a PhD basically makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a job of any "lower" level (in terms of qualification) because of the combination of my specialised skillset and the fact that I'm seen as "overqualified" (and therefore seen as likely to be dissatisfied with the job, and thus a risky choice). But I'm also not willing to lie, because the truth is, any job I get could end up being very short because I'd still be looking for a postdoc. Note that, even as I look for work, I'm also working on scientific journal articles in an effort to increase my employability... but it costs me quite a bit of money to travel to the city and back (and I need to do this to work with my PhD supervisor on those articles), which means I can only travel in on rare occasions. But Centrelink doesn't consider that at all. To be clear, I'm not asking for less requirements for the same money. I'd gladly reduce the amount received to 40%, in order to also reduce the required number of applications to 4 per fortnight. I'd quite happily also give up all of the pension concessions. I really just need enough to barely survive with parental support, but that's not how much I'm actually offered, nor how much burden is attached. As such, I ended up getting only 3 weeks worth of welfare, before I dropped it, realising that not only was it wasting my time, but it was wasting the time of employers. It's also worth noting that I went through all of university, all the way to PhD level, without a single dollar of governmental student support (austudy). So in future, if you're going to criticise the Australian welfare system, try doing so using actual facts and knowledge, rather than ideology and ignorance. |
1. There may be many requirments but I know people who always seem to get away with it.
2. Things may have changed now, but I know people who use to make it all up and never get caught. I know a guy in WA who told me when he had people on the dole come asking for jobs it was much easier for him to jsut sign the form saying they tried then giving them a go and have them quiting on him 2 days later.
3. Again I know people who have claimed they had a kid for those reasons, perhaps trying to act cool, i don't know. But I do know that their 2 year old is running around on the codesac unsupervised once every while when they forget to shut the front gate. There was a situation where I had to rescue the kid from on coming traffic. Yes I did report the situation.
4. Perhaps I was a bit over generalising. I was factoring in rent but did not want to go into detail. I know people (my friend included with two other mates all on the dole, which provided a nice combined income for having fun) who live in department housing and pay $70 a week (based on my state, no idea about others) for a 3 bedroom home. The same size home for non department is about $320 (that is what my brother pays). When my friend got a full time job, he was required to pay $350 a week for the department house he was in. Ironically I thought they would have asked him to move out to a private rental and given the house to a disadvantaged family. My brother earns minimum wage, so after taxes he probably has about $520 a week - rent = $200 for other expenses, which is comparible to the left over my mate had at the time (worst off if you factored all three mates together). Now he has no choice, he has three kids so he has to have the space, otherwise his wife and him probably would live in a small 1 bedroom unit somewhere.
I do take your point that dollar for dollar value they are not close and I guess probably not everyone on the dole will be lucky to have department housing and have the benefit of the significantly cheaper rent. But somehow the dole cheats alwas find the way to maximise their money whilst the real needy suffer.
5. No I have no problem with them receiveing these benefits. I actually think pensioners deserve far more what they are getting. My problem is that you are forced to get private health care if you earn a certain amount when you already pay taxes for the public system. It is a waste of money, so far my private health has offered me nothing. When I get sick, I still have to use medicare. It is only for when something serious happens that it may be of any benefit to me. In anycase, I should be given a choice without the threat of a penalty surcharge.
I do agree about all your centerlink comments. When I was looking for a job after graduating, they expected me to look for any job and not in my field. I told them that I did find a job, but I would be starting 2 months from now in the new finnancial year when the company has the budget to let me into the graduate program, They told me to keep looking for other jobs. Now why would I? The job I secured was fantastic. They even wanted me to go to the "how to write a resume and interview practise classes" during my post graduate study exams. I tired to reschedule but they said i HAD to come in. I went to the training place and told them I already had a job and they STILL wanted me to practice and shredded my resume apart and wanted to load it into their template with their logo on it. I basically I said this is a waste of my time and walked out the door. Went across to centerlink and told them to cancel my payments as it was not worth the hassel. I was lucky that they did call me couple weeks laterandwanted me to start earlier as they needed the extra resources at the time. So I wasn't too harmed.
